Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Is that what kashima shinryu looks like, or is it aikido? Since people here do aikido, I was wondering if anyone could tell me which parts are aikido, and which are kashima? And is it common to mix aikido with koryu like that? The book seemed pretty explicit that they had their own jujutsu.

The first one is Aikido and the second one is too, with a bit of Kashima Shinryu style sword stuff later on. I did Shiseikan too (1992-93) but not with Inaba Minoru Sensei. Their training includes both Aikido and Kashima Shinryu. Paul Smith trains, or used to train, with Kanetsuka Sensei in the UK, which is why perhaps what I see seems so familiar to me. I also saw Paul Smith in Japan once, I think.

According to Dr. Friday, none of it is Kashima Shin Ryu, as Paul Smith's "Kashima Shin Ryu" comes from Inaba Minoru.

That doesn't mean it's bad or worthless, just that it's not actually Kashima Shin Ryu and should be called something else.

KSR diehards will always say that and I guess it is true. But, if I practise Judo kata in my Aikido class should I tell them it's Judo, or should I call it Aikido? But given the way Aikido styles differ, I guess KSR diehards must quivver some when they see how it gets altered when done in other contexts (like Aikido).

Anyway, when I was doing Shiseikan I think some of the seniors were training separately in KSR alongside Aikido, though I am not sure. In Japan, these days, more than a few Aikido sensei are studying traditional ryu of one sort or another to compliment their Aikido. Usually though, they are not allowed to teach it. I remember that Igarashi Sensei came to Korea every year to teach Aikido when I was there. Everyone thought he was also teaching Katori Shinto Ryu - since he also did that - but in fact at first it was Saito's weapons (not that they'd know it) and later on it was his own new system he taught. No wonder everyone gets mixed up. Just as I was leaving Korea I heard that a genuine Katori Shinto Ryu Sensei was arriving to teach for one year - so I guess I missed out on that.

KSR diehards will always say that and I guess it is true. But, if I practise Judo kata in my Aikido class should I tell them it's Judo, or should I call it Aikido?

That depends entirely on how you do it. If you do it with aikido principles, then it's aikido. If you do it with no aikido principles, then it's judo.

Dr. Friday's contention is simply that Kashima Shinryu kata done with aikido principles is no longer Kashima Shinryu, but rather aikido, and shouldn't be called Kashima Shinryu.

Look at it this way: Morihiro Saito's aikiken's first two kata (IIRC) are taken directly from Kashima Shinto Ryu. The aikiken taught by Michio Hikitsuchi features three kata from Yagyu Shinkage Ryu. Does this mean that Saito sensei was (or any Iwama teacher currently is) teaching Kashima Shinto Ryu? Does it mean that Hikitsuchi was teaching Yagyu Shinkage Ryu? Not at all. They kata have been altered enough by integration into aikido that those names no longer fit.

Josh Reyer

The lyf so short, the crafte so longe to lerne,
Th'assay so harde, so sharpe the conquerynge...
- Chaucer

KSR diehards will always say that and I guess it is true. But, if I practise Judo kata in my Aikido class should I tell them it's Judo, or should I call it Aikido? But given the way Aikido styles differ, I guess KSR diehards must quivver some when they see how it gets altered when done in other contexts (like Aikido).

You're mixing apples and hand-grenades there. Judo (and Aikido) were both developed in the modern era and are not ryu-ha. Judo in particular was (like kendo) a way for people of different jujutsu ryu-ha to come together and test their skills with a standardized rule set. (That was a gross simplification, I realize that). Judo was also designed to be taught in PE programs and was based on some Western teaching methodologies. In many ways, it is a rejection of the ryu-ha system, as was Aikido. If Morihei Ueshiba had wanted to maintain the traditional structure on budo, he would have kept calling it Daito Ryu and reporting to his teacher Takeda Sensei. But in an older art like KSR (or even much newer arts that still adhere to the ryu-ha system) authority rests on one person. It is at that person's discretion who teaches *and* who is considered part of the family unit that is the ryu-ha. In simple terms, if you are not part of that social network, you simply are not part of the ryu-ha. A ryu-ha is more than the sum of its techniques, it is a living social unit.

A good example of some of the difficulties of this system would be TSKSR and Yoseikan Aiki-budo. At one time, it is my understanding that, the founder of Yoseikan Aikibudo (Mochizuki Minouru) had permission to teach his students TSKSR from the soke of TSKSR. At that time, he and his students were *doing* TSKSR. However, after that soke's death, the new soke (and senior teacher, not the same person) decided that they would not be continuing that arrangement. After that point in time, while nothing would have necessarily have changed in the way the Yoseikan folks trained, they would no longer be *doing* TSKSR. They might do the techniques of TSKSR (and I'm not getting into the debate about how well/authentically they do/did them) but they are not doing (nor are they part of) TSKSR.

I appreciate the replies, guys! Thanks! I guess you cant get around politics in martial arts!

This isn't really about politics at all...

The Koryu have been handed down for hundreds of years. Their training is based on Kata and it is progressive. Usually, a person doesn't do, and my not even see, what comes later in the progression until he has sufficiently mastered the level at which he is currently studying.

So the issue of how long one trained and with whom is vitally important. This is why the issue of teaching licenses and permissions to teach from the legitimate inheritors of a style are so crucial to proper transmission. There are levels and levels of understanding in these arts. The basic forms contain all sorts of things which will not be shown to a student until he gets to the proper level.

So these styles are justifiably protective of their lineage. They are essentially "endangered species" in the modern world. Very few do them, fewer still get to the top levels. If people are allowed to incorrectly use the name or say techniques are from a certain style, when the understanding of those techniques may not actually be true to that style, everything gets confused. Technical drift si one of the greatest concerns for the Koryu. That's why all permission to teach is closely controlled by the Soke or Headmaster of a given style.

In a style with 500 years of history, the subtleties in technique are vastly deeper than what most modern martial artists have access to in their respective styles. If you tamper with these things, the style literally becomes something else and ceases to be authentic. It would be like taking rare and endangered species and doing genetic engineering on them and letting them back in to the wild. They would start to be something "other", not what had evolved naturally.

The only way to be ensured that what you get when you train in a Koryu is the real thing is to train with someone who has permission to teach directly from the Headquarters establishment.

This isn't to say that what various people are doing in their weapons work isn't of value... Inaba Sensei's weapons instruction is invaluable for Aikido, an art which has had no systematic weapons work in much of what is taught these days. But it isn't Kashima and should not be referred to that way.

Gleason Sensei's sword work came through Inaba, I believe... It is great stuff. But I suspect that his interpretation of things is growing and developing and is no longer strictly what he was taught either. This is both fine and even desirable in Aikido which is an art purposely designed to be changing, evolving, and growing all the time. But it would be disastrous for a Koryu. In just a generation of this type of transmission, the style would cease to be what it had been. It would be extinct just as the dinosaurs are. Just as we can find DNA in modern birds that shows a relationship to the dinosaurs, one might still be able to find elements in what evolved that came from the old Koryu but they would be entirely different taken out of context. And out of context they lose their original meaning. That knowledge would be lost and could not be regained.

If you would better understand what the Koryu represent, take a look at the Koryu.com website. It is a wealth of material on the Japanese Koryu and perhaps will allow folks to see that these concerns are not about "politics" but about fundamental issues.

Yes, that is Paul Smith from the Tetsushinkan. He studied swordwork for a short while with Inaba Sensei and aikido with Yamaguchi Sensei in the 1980s, while he was in the BAF and working at the London School of Contemporary Dance. I understand he still has regular contact with Inaba Sensei and invites him to his dojo. I haven't practised with Paul for many years, but I always found his aikido interesting, as it is strongly influenced by his day job as a professional dancer (you can see this in the warmup in the first video).

Kanetsuka Sensei was also strongly influenced by Inaba Sensei for a while, firstly through the late Sekiya Sensei (who studied with Inaba at the Shiseikan), and then through direct contact with Inaba, whom he used to describe as a kind of martial arts prodigy. The connection with Yamaguchi Sensei is also significant, as many of the latter's students (for example William Gleason and Christian Tissier) also teach this style of swordwork.

We used to practise the Kihon Dachi regularly at Kanetsuka Sensei's dojo in Oxford in the early 80s, although he never claimed he was teaching KSR. I feel that the way of using the sword in these exercises is very relevant to aikido, and is very different in essence and feeling to the "aikiken" taught by Saito Sensei. These days Kanetsuka Sensei hardly ever teaches swordwork, and certainly hasn't taught the Kihon Dachi for many years, although Ken Marsden does teach it at the BAF Summer School.

The Koryu have been handed down for hundreds of years. Their training is based on Kata and it is progressive. Usually, a person doesn't do, and my not even see, what comes later in the progression until he has sufficiently mastered the level at which he is currently studying.

So the issue of how long one trained and with whom is vitally important. This is why the issue of teaching licenses and permissions to teach from the legitimate inheritors of a style are so crucial to proper transmission. There are levels and levels of understanding in these arts. The basic forms contain all sorts of things which will not be shown to a student until he gets to the proper level.

So these styles are justifiably protective of their lineage. They are essentially "endangered species" in the modern world. Very few do them, fewer still get to the top levels. If people are allowed to incorrectly use the name or say techniques are from a certain style, when the understanding of those techniques may not actually be true to that style, everything gets confused. Technical drift si one of the greatest concerns for the Koryu. That's why all permission to teach is closely controlled by the Soke or Headmaster of a given style.

In a style with 500 years of history, the subtleties in technique are vastly deeper than what most modern martial artists have access to in their respective styles. If you tamper with these things, the style literally becomes something else and ceases to be authentic. It would be like taking rare and endangered species and doing genetic engineering on them and letting them back in to the wild. They would start to be something "other", not what had evolved naturally.

The only way to be ensured that what you get when you train in a Koryu is the real thing is to train with someone who has permission to teach directly from the Headquarters establishment.

This isn't to say that what various people are doing in their weapons work isn't of value... Inaba Sensei's weapons instruction is invaluable for Aikido, an art which has had no systematic weapons work in much of what is taught these days. But it isn't Kashima and should not be referred to that way.

Gleason Sensei's sword work came through Inaba, I believe... It is great stuff. But I suspect that his interpretation of things is growing and developing and is no longer strictly what he was taught either. This is both fine and even desirable in Aikido which is an art purposely designed to be changing, evolving, and growing all the time. But it would be disastrous for a Koryu. In just a generation of this type of transmission, the style would cease to be what it had been. It would be extinct just as the dinosaurs are. Just as we can find DNA in modern birds that shows a relationship to the dinosaurs, one might still be able to find elements in what evolved that came from the old Koryu but they would be entirely different taken out of context. And out of context they lose their original meaning. That knowledge would be lost and could not be regained.

If you would better understand what the Koryu represent, take a look at the Koryu.com website. It is a wealth of material on the Japanese Koryu and perhaps will allow folks to see that these concerns are not about "politics" but about fundamental issues.

First of all let me start off by thanking Ledyard Sensei on behalf of everyone at Shobu Aikido of Boston for the wonderful seminar he taught this week end. He gave us all a lot to think about and work with, and we are all looking forward to the day when he'll come back to teach us again.

For the record, Gleason Sensei was instructed in swordsmanship by Noguchi Sensei at Yamaguchi Sensei's Shibuya Station dojo.

Gleason Sensei has recently released a DVD entitled "Akikido and Japanese Sword" that contains some VERY RARE vintage footage of Noguchi Sensei should anyone be interested.

I really don't mean to be kicking up dust ... just looking for some clarification.

Tissier sensei (whom I love dearly) is introduced at the aikiexpo as demonstrating the sword of Kashima Shinryu.

In light of Dr. Fridays comments is this still 'kosher'? Technically Tissier sensei did not say such (on the DVD) but was announced as such by F. Takahasi sensei. Still, leaves the peanut gallery wondering.

Unless the dates on the iaido listserv are wrong (2000) then Tissier sensei is 'aware of the situation' and yet is still so introduced ...

Inaba Sensei claims his kenjutsu to be kashima shin ryu. And he teaches it with this name. There are severeal seminars and dojo where his kenjutsu is taugth under this name.

Seki Humitake shihanke, the official successor of Kunii Zen'ya , says Inabe doesn't have the right to do so and has only had minimal initial exposure to this jutsu.
So he shouldn't use the name Kashima shin ryu.

Tissier normally uses the name KSR very seldom since he is
aware of the situation.

A good example of some of the difficulties of this system would be TSKSR and Yoseikan Aiki-budo. At one time, it is my understanding that, the founder of Yoseikan Aikibudo (Mochizuki Minouru) had permission to teach his students TSKSR from the soke of TSKSR. At that time, he and his students were *doing* TSKSR. However, after that soke's death, the new soke (and senior teacher, not the same person) decided that they would not be continuing that arrangement. After that point in time, while nothing would have necessarily have changed in the way the Yoseikan folks trained, they would no longer be *doing* TSKSR. They might do the techniques of TSKSR (and I'm not getting into the debate about how well/authentically they do/did them) but they are not doing (nor are they part of) TSKSR.

Of course, Mochizuki Sensei was superlative in his sword training, but he never made a secret that he modified the TSKSR that he taught, based on things he learned from a police unit that trained for practicality in the sword and not to retain any historical accuracy. He made some big changes. We knew that the kata "came from" TSKSR, but we also knew that they were "not" TSKSR.

Thanks.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu